2023 (7) TMI 1416 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Rejection of application seeking leave to appeal - the prosecution case rested on three eye-witnesses accounts - HELD THAT - It is observed that no doubt the judgment and order of the High Court appears a bit cryptic but that by itself need not be a ground to set aside the order and remit the matter to the High Court, particularly, when we have the relevant record to assess the merit of the prosecution case. More so, because the incident is of the year 1987 and the appeal has remained pending since more than a decade. In such circumstances, if we remit the matter to the High Court only to rewrite the judgment, it would be travesty of justice. It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of the appellate court to reappreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record - What is important is that neither PW3 nor PW6 could identify any of the three accused. They did not depose that the three policemen involved in the crime were those who were facing trial. Thus, there is no infirmity, much less perversity, in the view taken by the trial court that the testimony of PW-3 and PW-6 is not of much help to the prosecution qua the three accused facing trial. Adverting to the proven circumstances, what transpires is that the witnesses are consistent that there was a police action on that fateful night. Assuming that it is true that in the night there was an exchange of fire between men in uniform and members of the public, but there is no reliable evidence that the exchange of fire was with a view to kill. Moreover, the deceased did not die of a rifle bullet injury. Rather, he died from a .12 bore gunshot which could not be ascribed to rifles issued to the accused persons. Therefore, even if empties of rifle cartridges relatable to service rifles issued to the accused were found at the spot, culpability of the accused persons in causing death of the deceased is not inferable - Here the circumstances found proved do not constitute a chain so far complete as to indicate that in all human probability it were the accused persons and no one else who committed the crime. In such a situation, there was no option for the trial court but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. This is not a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the High Court and the matter remitted only for the High Court to rewrite the judgment as the same, in our view, would be an exercise in futility - The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Rejection of the application seeking leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code.
3. Evaluation of evidence and findings of the trial court.
4. High Court's observations on the trial court's judgment.
5. Submissions by the appellant and respondent.
6. Analysis of the Supreme Court.

Summary:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The High Court condoned the delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.12.2011 passed by the trial court.

2. Rejection of the Application Seeking Leave to Appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code:
The High Court rejected the application seeking leave to appeal and dismissed the Government Appeal accordingly.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Findings of the Trial Court:
The trial court found the testimony of PW-3 and PW-6 inconsequential as they did not identify the accused. PW-15 was found unreliable due to delayed disclosure and identical affidavits prepared by a lawyer. The trial court noted discrepancies in the ballistic evidence and the autopsy report, which indicated the gunshot injury was from a .12 bore weapon, not a rifle. The trial court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused were the ones who attacked the deceased.

4. High Court's Observations on the Trial Court's Judgment:
The High Court noted that the prosecution case rested on three eye-witnesses' accounts, but PW-3 and PW-6 could not identify the policemen, and PW-15 was found unreliable. The medical evidence indicated the deceased died due to gun-shot injuries fired from a .12 bore weapon, not a rifle. Hence, granting leave to appeal would be futile.

5. Submissions by the Appellant and Respondent:
The appellant argued that the presence of the accused at the scene was confirmed by eye witnesses and circumstances, and the trial court's verdict was perverse. The respondent countered that the deceased died from a .12 bore gunshot, not a rifle, and some empty cartridges did not match the rifles of the accused, indicating someone else's presence.

6. Analysis of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's judgment was cryptic but decided not to remit the matter back, considering the long pendency. The Court found no infirmity in the trial court's view that the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6 were not helpful, and PW-15 was unreliable. The proven circumstances did not conclusively indicate the accused's guilt. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.